Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Marine Detained For Facebook Posts Deemed "Terrorist in Nature"
colinneagle writes with news of a marine turned conspiracy theorist who was detained for psychological evaluation after posting rants on Facebook. He has since been ordered to remain in a mental facility for at least 30 days. From the article: "There are conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don't really follow that news, but can people be arrested after saying so online, exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech? On August 16, the FBI, Secret Service and the Chesterfield Police arrested a decorated former U.S. Marine for 'airing his critical views of the U.S. government on Facebook.' On Facebook, Raub talked about the Illuminati, a shadow organization in which 'some of the leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers' and the 'great amount of evil perpetrated by the American Government.' He said people may think he was going crazy, but a 'civil war,' the 'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
I suspect being a former marine and threatening to decapitate military officials might have had something to do with this (communicating specific threats?). But then again, his Facebook page was reportedly private, and according to the AP newswire: "The big concern, Whitehead said, is whether government officials are monitoring citizens' private Facebook pages and detaining people with whom they disagree."
The answer:
Really?
So the fact aside for a moment that it's not possible for a Facebook Page to be closed (was it his page, or more likely a Closed Group?), it's not possible for any one of his friends and/or group members to have complained?
Really?
Whitehead said he found nothing alarming in Raub's social media commentaries. "The posts I read that supposedly were of concern were libertarian-type posts I see all the time," he said.
Indeed. Then all of those people should be hauled away then, too, right?
But there will likely be plenty of people here who choose to believe the government is routinely and without warrants monitoring private communications on social media -- it will be the same folks who believe that the government is illegally dragnet-wiretapping all Americans while ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests.
He should know that.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things
free speech is about speaking normal grievances against the government and using the political process to change them
This is a mentally unstable trained killer making death threats. Next.
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
I am John Hurt.
You have now just validated what this paranoid individual has been saying to his mentally unstable friends. Good job!
i am so very tired....
If he was really going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be better to let him say it, then be able to catch him in the act, having a clearer and less ambiguous case, with a longer, actual sentence [not some 30 day psych ward stint that won't stop anybody]?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Just quoting lyrics: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/swollenmembers/bringmedown.html
I'm extremely pro-privacy but even this is ridiculous. I don't care who you are or who your friends might be - if one of them starts talking some crazy conspiracy, murderous shit and he's an ex-marine (and probably either has or has access to several weapons), please please please seriously call the police about it.
"Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
Don't want an extended psych evaluation? Don't threaten people on the internet.
They didn't just get him for exercising free speech, they got him for revealing government secrets.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
So we stop a professionally trained killer in his tracks after indicating that he might be a mentally imbalanced homicidal maniac, and that makes us "slaves"?
I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Absolutely, getting him a long sentence would be worth a few murdered generals.
You. fucking. retard.
Maybe if we paid this kind of attention to all the nutjobs, we could sort the harmless ones from the ones who shoot up a place.
You're obviously trolling, but I'll bite
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
Now, do the police have a right to investigate? Absolutely. Do they have any right to detain the man? Absolutely not. Unless they find something during a legal investigation. If that sounds like nuttery to you, then I would say your the nut.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Fuuuuck! your = you're... cuz I can say what I want... so there!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I know everyone thinks that this is a punitive move, but at least on the face of it, the psych detention is for diagnostic purposes. We put people in this situation routinely when they are 1) an danger to themselves or others (likely the rationale here) or 2) gravely disabled (think sitting in the middle of the freeway).
From the limited info presented, it may well be the most reasonable thing to do. Perhaps he's just blowing off steam. Perhaps he is having a bad day.
Or perhaps he has a couple of fully auto M-16s, a couple thousand rounds of ammo, a couple of grenades and maybe some other souvenirs of the Middle East. It's a difficult balance between letting people do what they feel is right and allowing mass murder, even if it's justified to some people's minds.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You're the one who said Facebook Page with a capital p, the quote didn't. The original sentence could refer to anywhere on Facebook's site. Now if the government was doing anything illegal, you wouldn't expect them to be blatant about it would you? They'd of course have some sort of excuse, some sort of explanation as to where the lead came from. We already know Facebook monitors all "private" communication, they've admitted as much when identifying a guy trying to groom girls. Of course that probably means a ton of other conversations gets flagged and looked at, without you ever knowing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Facebook also has an agreement to look for possible terrorists, drug deals and whatever else the government might have an interest in knowing. Nothing you say there should be treated as private, ever.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Businessmen are always trying to make military analogies. Makes them feel macho and in charge, I suppose. There is, however, a clear difference between some coke addled suit and an ex-marine with a bunch of weapons.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And if they had done nothing and we had a few dead generals, I predict people would have shouted "how come no one saw the signs and intervened?"
There's clearly a blurry line here trying to distinguish crazed ranting from actual threats. I'm definitely opposed to the idea of "thoughtcrime", but if someone is making real threats that they're in a position to carry out (and I'm guessing an ex-Marine is more qualified than most to do so) it makes sense to step in before real harm is done. But that's also contingent on us being able to actually make a realistic distinction between blowing off steam and actually planning violence. We tend to be overcautious here, but that's societal trends at work.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
To be fair, "heads will roll" in the context of "We're going to fire the people responsible" and "heads will roll" in the context of "... off the end of this battleax I'm sharpening as it turns red with their blood" are two completely different kinds of posts. The former isn't so bad (bad for the people losing their jobs, but not grossly illegal in and of itself). The latter is scary and bears looking into. If the person turns out to not only have the know how (ex-marine) but also the mindset (conspiracy theorist far down the rabbit hole) to carry out his statements, then his statements should be taken as serious threats of violence.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
How many thousands and thousands fulminated and vituperated in the most horrible manner against Bush?
How many were thrown in jail?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Yes. That happens with every bad thing, and always will, no matter how much is done or changed. "WHY DIDN'T THE TSA CHECK OUR SHOES?!?"
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That is loony cynicism. In your hypothetic example, "heads will roll" does not mean violence.
Unless you are gunnying for +3 Funny and I didn't get it.
Reading comprehension my good man, try it some time. The 1969 case overturned the original case, but not all implications of it. Speech is still illegal if it passes the "Brandenburg test" which is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawlessness. That is precisely the case when yelling fire in a theater, and the Wikipedia article even says this about the concurring opinion (written by justice Douglas): "Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech."
No one was being monitored. This guy, an Ex-Marine, probably had some Not-Yet-Ex-Marines as friends. His rants got noticed by one of them, and after some forwarding around of the "look how insane this guy is! lol!" type posts, it ended up with some busybody who saw the specific threats, and decided to file a report.
My theory seems much more likely. Before starting a debate about Orwellian surveillance, why don't we get some facts?
This link was presented on a message board I frequent: Update: Former Marine Arrested by FBI for Facebook Posts!!
The "threatening to decapitate military officials" in the summary seems, as far as I can tell, to be a conflation of two separate Facebook posts he made: 1) "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads" (which are apparently lyrics from a song) and 2) "This is part where I tell the Federal Government to go fuck itself. This is the part where I tell Generals, training our young med to fight Americans, I am coming for you. The Veterans will be with me."
The latter is probably what caught the government's attention.
As to "his Facebook page was reportedly private", also from the summary, a number of his posts were shared by people on his Friends list. If it's true that his page was private, it's very likely that the word got out through this sharing.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Fine, you can't call in a false bomb threat then. Plenty of present-day examples for that.
You probably can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater either. I don't believe it's been tested. The decision in which the phrase originated was later overturned, but that not because shouting fire in a theater is okay.
The original decision said that protesting the draft was akin to shouting fire in a theater, since it would cause harm to the nation. The glaringly obvious flaw in that reasoning is the question of who decides that protesting the draft is harmful? But when it comes to inciting a stampede in a crowded place, it is obviously harmful.
"Off with their heads!" - the Red Queen, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
That's from 1865. Doesn't sound very freedom related to me, so the whole "freedom" thing must be new. OTOH, C L Dodgson didn't get thrown in jail for what he wrote.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Whether the Facebook page is private or not is irrelevant, his friends reported him to the authorities and easily could have shown them the Facebook page.
I'm not sure I see anything in this story that makes me worry about civil liberties, it's just an unusual news story.
I stole this Sig
that any threats such as this discharged marine made will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. That's right, the Government doesn't have to spy or even pay for the information as Facebook gives the heads up to the government anytime this happens. Simply put, if you want to rant in private, then god damn well do it in private and not on the fucking internets.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
If you stampede despite all the mandatory fire drill lessons in publi education, YOU are assaulting someone. Your own panic should not be a valid legal excuse, nor a reason to pass the responsibility onto the "prankster". A lot of false bomb threats are phoned in - are people injuring themselves in a trample? No, because they are acting reasonable. That is an individual's responsibility, and you don't get to morally write it off "because someone told me something that made me lose all reason".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
With many mass shootings, it turns out people knew the perpetrator had mental issues, but nothing was done about it. Now that somebody is doing something about it, that's not right either. shaking my head
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Did they find a battle axe in his possession? If not, it was probably metaphorical.
And he did say those things. No one physically prevented his free speech. He's being held after the fact for psychological evaluation. On the other hand they could have held him on criminal charges as most states have laws against credible threats of violence.
The courts do not have a lot of historical precedent for freedom of speech clause of the US constitution until after WWI. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes has the quote most relevant to this situation: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." I think this legal basis is still mostly current, so law enforcement would need to only prove a "clear and present danger" even if the person is deemed to be sane.
There's also the issue of what if the person is insane. I don't know the legal history here but certainly there has been a long history of of forced hospital commitments and evaluations for those who are judged to be insane, as they are said to be a danger to themselves and others, and very often the only evidence of mental illness is what the patient says. Is this a free speech issue or not?
Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...
You are. You are also responsible for the repercussions.
He wrote a book about a fictional character threatening to decapitate a fictional character. The article is about a Marine (someone TRAINED to kill) threatening actual government employees with a specific weapon. Now "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads" could be taken as a simple saying (akin to "heads will role"), but when it's coming a ex Marine who not only has the ability and training to do it, but has posted other comments showing a possible mental imbalance, people start to get a little more worried than when a playing card threatens a book character.
Who ever said that the rampaging murderers should be let off the hook? No reason we can't spread the blame around when a person ends up dead because of malice or negligence. The point is that the original inciter either intended for people to get hurt or was woefully negligent in not realizing that people likely would be hurt in such a situation. Textbook murder/manslaughter.
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
As long as it's just fantasizing it is talk only .
Have any other actions to confirm a crime? Then arrest and charge for the crime (ah, right, I forgot: linking to locations on internet may be a crime in US, not need for a real-life action against somebody).
Have other signs of mental imbalance? Then see how you can offer medical treatment (oh, right, I forgot... universal medical care in US is seen as the most evil thing there can be...God forbids that even veterans, who lost their health for their country, are to benefit of medical care free of charge).
Rate me flamebait, but here's my sincere opinion: this is coming from the dystopian saga of the "Weird Planet America"... beat me if I can rationally understand it
(or am I batshit crazy? Will one come to arrest me for it?)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
p>
Now, do the police have a right to investigate? Absolutely. Do they have any right to detain the man? Absolutely not.
Actually, detention of suspects at the onset, during and after an investigation is common and not unconstitutional within limits. From TFS, this sounds like a pretty routine psych detention. I've had a friend detained on at least 2 occasions for psych evaluations, though in fairness he was committing trespassing crimes both times.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I think if you read a chunk of his wall (which is open to anyone to read on FB) you'll find enough to convince you that perhaps he should talk to a psychiatrist.
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall
Not as big a deal as you'd think. Even years after being out of the US Army, i get phone calls asking about my mental well-being. They seem to take good care of their own, as if the government still feels possessive or responsible for an in-active veteran. It's terrible if a civilian goes batshit insane and kills people. If a Marine goes batshit insane it becomes an event that books are written about.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Facebook *does* monitor "private" communications (probably with automated keyword searching and the like) and will proactively contact law enforcement if it's deemed appropriate... The following story broke locally about a week ago -- http://www.cjob.com/news/winnipeg/story.aspx?ID=1757654 (tl;dr - Local PD got a call from FB about the sexual assault of a 13 year old by a 25 yo.)
It is entirely possible that something similar happened here, no matter how private his postings were.
~/terrorist/fucked up|scary/gi
Home of the brave... It's time to give back your land to the actual Braves you took them from, or change the damn anthem: "Land of the Paranoid, and the Home of the Terrified"
When referring to a member of a Marine Corps (US, British Royal, Republic of Korea), the word "Marine" is always capitalized.
If he takes out a few congresspeople, a couple of senators, and maybe a president, and a few thousand lawyers, I don't think they'd be missed at all. He is right. A revolution is coming. Our government grows more corrupt every year. When people get fed up that we live in a country run by money that only caters to major corporations at the expense of everyone else, it'll happen. It may or may not be violent and bloody. But the people at the top will most certainly meet a horrendous fall. They are correct to be scared. History has demonstrated this over and over again: no matter how good the intentions a governing body when it is first constructed, eventually absolute corruption occurs, and at that point it needs to be burned away to keep the body alive, much like you would cauterize a severe wound. And then, a newly formed, and temporarily corruption-free head will grow to take its place, until the people get complacent and lazy and look the other way. And then a few hundred years later, the story will repeat itself (up to a few thousand if the cancer is allowed to mature and turn into a brutal dictatorship).
I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.
There is actually a silver lining to this story.
Threatening to chop off the heads of generals on a private Facebook page seems to be much more effective at getting yourself mental health services than telling everyone who would listen that you're just going to kill yourself.
"'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
It seems to me like he was wildly optimistic in his paranoia. Most paranoids would have just said: "The government is coming for me. Men will be a my door soon to pick me up to take me away. "
Numbnuts using phrases like: "I have nothing to hide, so I'm fine with this...", or "If you don't like it, don't use the Internet..." should be very careful what they type from now on. Deygoingetcha. On the one hand, law enforcement focus their scopes on terrorists and gangs. At the same time, rotten elements within law enforcement can focus their scopes on things they happen to hate. This is all happening now. Not in some abstract future. Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Nokia have histories working with the NSA & equivs installing backdoors in their OSes. And FB is a pathetic joke when it comes to privacy issues. Might as well assume zero privacy when it comes to social apps, webcams, and smartphone cameras.
You can run around saying "nigger" all you want and the cops legally can't do anything about it. However, that doesn't mean that a little "social pressure" won't be applied if you say it in front of the wrong people.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Absolutely, getting him a long sentence would be worth a few murdered generals.
Nah, generals just do the dirty work the politicians tell them to.
The politicians themselves, OTOH... Yeah, a few less of them wasting our oxygen, and one unbalanced whack-job in prison - I'd call that a net positive all around!
Whenever someone goes on a killing rampage, people always dig up all this stuff and say, "Why didn't we stop this?"
Whenever they act on this stuff to prevent it, people always say, "But he never did anything, just talked about it!"
Somedays, you just can't win...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
So are you saying that it's ok to punish people for toughcrime? The guy hasn't done anything wrong.
There didn't need to be any monitoring, his wall was left for anyone to read.
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall
So do you think he was actually planning to get an axe and chop off their heads? That would be kind of unusual, don't you think?
Hell, me and my business owning buddies do this all the time. It's just posturing and pumping ourselves up. Nobody would rationally believe that I'm going to "drive $COMPETITOR before me whilst hearing the lamentations of their women". The things this guy was saying on Facebook is in no way comparable.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Have any other actions to confirm a crime?
Who cares about that!? He could, theoretically, kill someone. Actually, anyone could. And as everyone knows, a few deaths are far worse than violating everyone's freedom. Therefore, we must toss everyone in prison.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I own a hatchet, an axe, a Polaski, a chainsaw and a splitting maul. Does that mean I've lost my right to call for someones head?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...
You are. You are also responsible for the repercussions.
In some countries speaking out against the state religion can result in a death penalty (e.g. Yemen, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia).
You'll be held responsible for breaking that law in those countries. But hey, you ARE free to say it. I mean, it's not like they gaze into a crystal ball and gag you just before you were about to say it.
So what's the big deal, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the ability to say it is not in question - whether there SHOULD BE legal repercussions is. I know a lot of people say what you've just said lately. It's fashionable. You heard it and it sounded good. It's become a meme in its own right. But memes are mindless and they keep you from noticing one thing: you're missing the point.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
FB bots already troll for illegal content and if something is spotted, it's forwarded to "the man."
There was something about this here not too long ago, but I can't be arsed to look it up.
1. Don't be stupid and post potentially illegal/threatening stuff to your FB page, whether you think it's private or not. It's not. Read your privacy policy. Act as if FB is some weird version of usenet and you'll be fine. Also, if you are bent on revolution, no revolution ever really got started by doing the organizing in public. At least not at first.
Thus sayeth the FB privacy policy:
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=+322194465300
2. See 1. And if you still don't understand it, keep reading 1 until you do.
--
BMO
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but this page looks pretty normal to me. 9/11 truth and chemtrails and so fourth. If they were going to lock up everyone with a page like this, it would be tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I don't see a good reason to believe he is mentally disturbed, or that he is going to act out. His detention is alarming, to say the least. Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
Of course who would be the first to complain if a terrorist act was committed and later it was found that such rants existed but no watch/action was taken on that individual? one doesn't have to go very far back in the past for examples! :(
" Then see how you can offer medical treatment "
That's what they were doing. He wasn't arrested, he was detained for psychiatric treatment. In the U.K. there's a handy verbified noun for this - 'sectioned'. I dunno if there's something equivalent in U.S. English. I think most jurisdictions allow for the forcible confinement of people who clearly have dangerous mental problems but refuse to be treated voluntarily - there's a demonstrated need for this, after all.
Not so unusual - as earlier posters mentioned, axe-fighting is part of Army Basic Training.
Please refer to Army Operations manual FM-17, section 2.3.9 - Providing Fair Notice of Initiation of New American Revolution, and section 5.70.7 - Decapitating Superior Officers with Lumberjack Implements.
Remember the First Amendment doesn't protect you IF you are inciting violence. "I am starting the revolution" is pretty thin and then he went and said he was going "to sever heads" and "come for the generals". It would have to show in his other posts he had the Means, Motive and Opportunity to start issuing violence to the good ole USA. So yeah, I say it quals are terroristic threats. He's page being "private" has nothing to do with it, that is way different then in his head.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
Private Facebook page?
LMAO!
This guy is clearly crazy.
1. a. "i'm going to chop people's heads off"
b. authorities do nothing, guy chops heads off
c. "why didn't you anything!"
2. a. "i'm going to chop people's heads off"
b. authorities get involved
c. "it's just fantasy! orwell! freedom! WHARGARBBL"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is a mental health issue. He wasn't arrested, he was detained because he is crazy. In America, you can get someone locked up as insane. He doesn't need a trial. It is a serious problem.
... that the person (i) has a mental illness and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (a) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any, or (b) suffer serious harm due to his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs, (ii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iii) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment."
This has long been a problem in the western world. In Europe, if someone seemed crazy, in the 1800s it was a popular way to get rid of him if he was the only person in line ahead of you for inheritance (see for example, Prince Ludwig of Bavaria). In America, we had asylums with power to keep anyone who was deemed to be crazy. The administrators had a lot of power in these places, and eventually it was shown that doctors were incompetent at distinguishing sane people from insane people. A lot of hospitals got closed at that point.
In case anyone cares, here is the law that will allow him to be locked up, in case any lawyer wants to comment:
a mental health professional can decide to issue a temporary detention order if "it appears
He threatened harm, the law lets him be locked up.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
" Then see how you can offer medical treatment "
That's what they were doing. He wasn't arrested, he was detained for psychiatric treatment.
I can understand that as a rational reaction. I can't understand why
"fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off" cannot be related "to talking about anything freedom" as the GGP post suggests.
I don't condone violence, I don't make use of it (other than truly exceptional cases), but I dislike giving away a liberty because of fear.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Whoosh...
And if they did nothing, and the guy wound up shooting up a movie theater, people would be crying "Why did no one do anything? The signs were CLEAR!"
Crazy people. WTF ya gonna do with 'em?
Maybe law enforcement here will amaze us all and actually get the guy some help.
Oh, *nearly* typed that with a straight face!
So is charging into a showing of The Dark Knight Rises with smoke bombs and guns. Especially with soldiers who have seen combat, there is a real and very unfortunate risk that they will come unhinged and start killing people randomly. It happens in wartime scenarios all the time, and it has been known to happen afterwards as well.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I don't know what to say about this. As cool as that would be if it were true, it still seems awfully impractical. Besides, wouldn't fair notice need to be in the form of some kind of new declaration of independence? I doubt a Facebook status update would be formal enough (maybe in a few years, but a tweet would be more appropriate in that case).
For example, I've never made anything remotely close to a threat or in any way indicated foul plots or intentions. I have merely ridiculed that which seems so flagrantly absurd that without a voice of contrast, blindness would prevail. Yet their attentions have surely been captured:
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png [image]
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png [image] | This visitor showed up hours before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warnings or violations - Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my Google (gmail, webmaster, etc.) account shortly after.
That's a slim example of the "attention" I've had at my own website. Some are bots, and some are not, but between fusion-centers and other profilers, a lot more has their attention than one would (or should) reasonably expect. The new security bureaucracy is Big Business and there just aren't enough angry brown people with bombs to justify the affronts to our liberties otherwise. Where the enemy is not, the enemy will be created. Just look at all the post 9-11 terror plots "foiled" by the FBI; they've been primarily cultivated from sub-stupid imbeciles hand-picked from the pinnacles of ineptitude.
We need security. People will continue going berserk. There are dangers. But it is NOT security we're getting. They ( Authoritaria) behave as if their sole passion is to protect society and make people cozy and safe, yet they think not twice before scooping human fodder for strange wars, , employing sock puppets, defiling education, tainting the media, feeding horrendous penal institutions, and severely tampering with things like foreign nations and our own economy.
It's just fine to have faith in government. But hold their feet to the fire and scrutinize the hell out of them, lest faith become dogma. It would appear -- in recent handling of transparency -- that government currently has a strong preference for the latter.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
You referenced Wikipedia in an argument. You automatically lose.
Unless the reason was that people that knew him called to say that he needed help. I don't know, I can't look at that because I don't have a facebook login. I had to deactivate it because I kept getting drunk and saying stupid shit on facebook (see what I did there). So, I am more than willing to believe he is harmless...here's hoping that he is checked out, determined to be batshit crazy but harmless...then let go.
However, it doesn't bother me at all that they detained him to check him out.
Your joking aside. The Marines put a greater emphasis on, and more time into, hand-to-hand combat training than the Army. In very recent times this may actually include the use of a modernized tactical hatchet. Some Marines and some of the more elite Army units are carrying them. This hatchet is more versatile and more intimidating than a knife, even the much beloved KBAR.
"Just cause I am from the CPT Punk police are afraid of me, huh A young nigger on the warpath And when I finish, it is going to be a bloodbath Of cops dyin in L.A." NWA "Fuck The Police"
There is a BIG difference between saying something and doing something friend, although since we've already had at least two people thrown in jail for thoughtcrimes (The guy that wrote the "pro-pedo" book and another caught at the border with his fantasies written down..on the request of his shrink) frankly nothing surprises me when it comes to the law anymore.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you were going to kill a bunch of people, that's what you'd do. "Heads will roll" is an obvious figure of speech. It's a reference to an antiquated form of execution.
Don't gangsta rappers talk like this all the time in their lyrics?
But they are usually posers, they are not taken seriously. In a real face-to-face with a cop they lie down as told or get put down.
Sadly in Virginia detention for mental instability is legal. Here's another commenter who understands it better than me.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3061057&cid=41063339
But you're right in that the law probably should be changed.
Nazi's dat spel bad?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We're well on the way already, with a much larger percentage of the population in jail than any other country.
Land of the free, indeed. Sure, freedom of speech except for this, that, and that other, and a few more things. And no guarantee of due process, or a trial at all.
This "freedom" doesn't impress me.
But people here still blindly believe they have the most freedom in the world, and are only willing to see where they have freedom and others don't, but not when it's the other way around. It must be patriotism, because it makes no sense.
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."
-- G. K. Chesterton
Committed.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There's an image of his facebook page in the article, if you'd like to check it out.
I'm just waiting for the butt bomber and the resulting mandatory body cavity searches or full-body CT scans.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Ok, now...1.....2.....3....
Duh?
Does anyone out there think they haven't been doing this for awhile? Who in their right mind doesn't think posts on FB are monitored, logged and evaluated?
Excuse me...someone is knocking at my door kind late....err......NO CARRIER
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Good job. You are right. We can't legally prosecute you for being a douchbag, but even if we can't prosecute you for the speech itself, If you yell fire in a crowded theater with the intent of harming others, you can still be tried for reckless endangerment and, should the worst happen, voluntary manslaughter or murder.
You've managed to completely overlook what a fire in a crowded theater actually meant at the time that the phrase was coined. Let's just say that we have these things called "fire exits" in theaters now because theater fires used to be so gruesome. Holmes' 1919 opinion was written a mere 16 year after 600 people died in the Iroquis theater fire, and six years after 73 people died in Calumet, Michigan due to exactly the conduct you advocate. At the time, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater was a guaranteed way play on popular fears and to ensure that large numbers of people died. Congrats on holding the moral low ground.
In addition, you've utter neglected the fact that people packed in tightly do not behave in the same way as people packed loosely, irrespective of their intentions. If you have a hundred tightly packed people in a narrow hallway so much as casually lean forward all at one time, the people in the front are going to be under immense force. (If you think that the inevitable trampling someone to death is any one person's fault, you are an idiot and a bastard.) That this principle is still true today is evident in the 2003 Station Nightclub Fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
You have as much as admitted that people are predictable, and if you think that hurting people to emphasize that fact is acceptable, you deserve no better.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
I dunno, we've got lots of spare generals laying around. It's not like anyone would miss a few.
There was a butt bomber about 3 stalls down from me in the shit house last week. He ran in and rendered the entire shit house uninhabitable for several hours. I'm sure it was a weapon of mass destruction he used. Not sure what was with the screaming though....perhaps trying to intimidate.
Of course who would be the first to complain if a terrorist act was committed and later it was found that such rants existed but no watch/action was taken on that individual?
Moral Majority, the Tea Party, and rednecks. But, I repeat myself.
I say fuck'em.
(No, friendly NSA agent, that is not a threat of rape, it's an opinion.)
The way to reduce violence is to strive for a society where violence isn't glorified and people have little reason to nourish hate.
Openness. Discuss with the guy. Let him know people are aware, and if we disagree, how and why.
Here's something I do know - when someone in the military makes threats against his superiors or the civilian government, that's NOT protected speech.
While the above rings true... pray do tell, it is related with the ex-marine exactly how?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Some are suggesting that the "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads" quote is a line from Swollen Members song Bring Me Down. It should also be noted that he doesn't own any guns, which doesn't seem to follow the pattern of a psychopath about to commit mass murder.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
First of all, the Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum.
It was written with British common law as its foundation.
You may be surprised to know this, but disorderly conduct has never been acceptable, whether you are free speechifying or not.
Second, the whole "exactly as written" idea has already been shot, burned, and its ashes scattered at sea.
As a society, we've modified the Constitution's meaning a thousand different ways, in a thousand different contexts.
The United States is something of an outlier for Constitutionally governed countries.
The average age of a Constitution is 17 years.
"The median lifespan is only eight years, while the mode is a miniscule one year."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
Although the practice gained infamy by it's use in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries against dissidents, it's nothing new in the US either, though not nearly so widespread, blatant, or partisan. There have been recent efforts in the US to hugely broaden the definition of what constitutes a "mental illness or disorder" that prohibits ownership/possession of firearms by opponents of individual gun rights, particularly since the recent shootings.
It would not surprise me in the least to learn that such tactics are increasingly being used by the US government to suppress dissent in recent years. History teaches us that abuses like this always happen when a government becomes too powerful.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed--would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper--the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you." - Nineteen Eighty-Four
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
If I pay somebody to kill my wife, all I did was "utter some words" but I am certainly guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. In the eyes of the law it is always about intent. Yelling fire cannot serve any purpose but to cause harm.
Once you're in the military, you're never really out until you turn 60.
You graduate down a slope of Reserve statuses
Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, and the Retired Reserve
Really getting out of the military is harder than leaving the Church of Scientology.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
he was detained for psychiatric treatment. In the U.K. there's a handy verbified noun for this - 'sectioned'. I dunno if there's something equivalent in U.S. English.
"committed". As in "He was committed to the psych ward".
Hey now, don't blame that on me.
The marine in this article did not own a gun.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
But there will likely be plenty of people here who choose to believe the government is routinely and without warrants monitoring private communications on social media
it wouldn't be anything new
"The NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication..."
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Please point to the evidence that he is mentally unstable or that he has made death threats. Who is handing out mod points these days?
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
That's beside the point. Here you have a trained killer threatening to severe heads with an axe.
Threatening?
"Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads"
-- Swollen Member, "Bring Me Down"
Song lyrics to also avoid posting on Facebook;:
"Run to the bedroom in the suitcase on the left
You'll find my favorite axe
Don't look so frightened
This is just a passing phase, one of my bad days"
"We are the small axe
Sharpened to cut you down,
Ready to cut you down."
"Me and my axe will leave your neck a bloody fountain
Everybody, everybody, everybody run
Murdering, murdering, murdering fun
Swing swing swing, chop chop chop,
swing swing swing, chop chop chop
My axe is my buddy, we right the planet's wrongs
Me and my axe leave bigots dead on richie lawns"
Not to mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oai-6GpkSkc
"I suspect being a former marine" the poster of this story should know that any active solider is held to a high standard of following and believing in there country. The FB posts do sound like something a shell shocked solider could say. One could argue that the discipline of the military does not allow these type of comments, even if he or she does not sound like they fell off there rocker. He probably talked about it outside of FB, strangers other Marines, friends, family and the press or military noticed he had a FB account. If this happens to more solders who do not refer to leading an invisible army, or going around with an axe, then I would get be concerned. But sensationalizing one incident and linking it to how various government agencies may monitor people on FB, is going a little to far. FB could have reported the comments or someone else did. There is no doubt that monitoring is going on, but name a social site that is not monitored or reporting users over speech that really is not of any concern, but this incident would be of concern..
You pick the headline you prefer;
Ex-Marine Forcibly Held for Psychiatric Evaluation
or
Officials Knew of Ex-Marine's Mental Instability Before Killing Spree and Did Nothing
Personally, I prefer the former. At worst a sane ex-marine goes through a few days of evaluation and is released. At best an ex-marine spiralling down into a psychotic episode gets the help he needs and recovers.
What the fuck man its like you don't even read the Wikipedia articles that you cite yourself. Italian Hall disaster in 1913, 73 dead. Give it up, you are wrong about the legal facts of the situation and your opinions are misguided to say the least.
Maybe if he had posted his thoughts in song form then it would have been okay.
Seriously, though, the guy sounds like he has some screws loose (just like everyone else who has tried to explain Illuminati conspiracy theories to me) and they threw him in a mental facility. If they sent him off to Guantanamo or some undisclosed location for an indefinite amount of time I would be upset. Instead, they gave him the psychiatric care he seems to need, which is something vets can be thankful for having available to them (most homeless people are mentally ill and have no access to psychiatric care). If he was some bum on the street yelling these things on a corner, he would just be arrested by local police for being disorderly or maybe just ignored completely. This guy's actually pretty lucky.
The problem with your rap analogy is that, like fiction (an analogy other posters tried without much success), there's an understood disconnect from reality. This guy may not have been serious, but it didn't seem like he was joking whether he meant to actually take action or not. He seemed legitimately angry and to legitimately believe in at least some of the mumbo jumbo he spewed. It would have been pretty irresponsible for law enforcement to ignore him once it was brought to their attention. How it was brought to their attention is another issue (which I don't really care about - I doubt much of anything online is 'private' once you throw around words the NSA computers mine for).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFEahAAGP-A
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
A lot more rambling and ranting about the so-called "Illuminati" and "chem trails" and also things like "UN invading USA" can be had @ www.godlikeproductions.com
Be forwarned: A lot of loonies over there
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Can I credit you with The Count of Monte Cristo?
Kill the chicken to scare the monkeys
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Apparently he was quoting lyrics.
And if those cannibals keep trying,
To sacrifice us to their pride,
They soon shall hear the bullets flying,
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
Will I also be arrested now?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of you cutting my head off with an axe, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
If a person's training in the military tips the scales between figure of speech and real threat, the fact of having trained people in the military seems highly irresponsible. If the fact of having seen combat is so psychologically damaging that soldiers are a threat to the people around them, then soldiers returning from war should be committed. I'd wager such a policy would really undermine recruitment. I like where this is going.
Admittedly, I only read TFS, not TFA, but TFS says that his wall was private. If that's true, maybe one of his friends turned him in.
I guess an interesting test would be to create a small group of fake FB accounts (from different IPs), friend them all with each other, then start posting a bunch of crazy conspiracy stuff and threats to assassinate various political figures. For the "person" making the real threats, set their address to be one of your neighbors. Since no real people (only your fake sock poppets) can see any of this stuff, if you see a SWAT team show up at your neighbors' house, then we can surmise that Facebook does indeed allow the government to monitor private communications there.
Maybe we shouldn't have trained him to be a professional killer....
It's creepy, because the government is not supposed to be spying on its own citizens, without a valid warrant. Now, if someone in a person's friends list alerts law enforcement to threatening statements made by someone, that's one thing; but if LE is seeing this stuff all on their own, there's something wrong.
...where Nurse Ratchet works.
the fire in a theater is a bit dated to continue to be realistic or practical in this scenario.
At one time, a fire in a movie theater was almost a guarantee of several deaths if not a couple dozen if it was full. There really would have been a life threatening sense of panic in the same as someone could be justified in killing an attacker who is threatening their life.
Before modern building codes and fire safety codes, theaters were basically tinder boxes with only one narrow exit. If a fire started back stage, it could be in front of the doors blocking the exits in a matter of minutes, often well before the time needed to evacuate the people inside. You also had the problems of props and materials that produced toxic fumes that would overwhelm patrons stuck behind the others and cost them their life. With the requirements of emergency exits and flame retardant materials, sprinkler systems and so on, this is not longer the case and the seriousness of how life threatening it was sort of disappeared.
So the fire in a crowded theater mem is sort of outdated as you pointed out, we have fire drills in public education now, most places have them at work once or twice a year, and the theaters themselves are a lot safer then it used to be. But even recently, in the station night club in Rhode Island sort of illustrates the perils of this. 100 people died and 200 were injured out of 400 some total because a lot of the fire codes in modern theaters were ignored (tables blocking emergency exits, exit lights not functioning, no sprinkler systems). Now imagine the sense of danger if that was expected every time a crowded theater caught fire.
No, it's better to get him before he acts. He has already committed a crime by threatening his superior officers.
The example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre is an old one that outdates many modern fire codes and inspections. It's sort of like the expression "crying wolf." Who in modern society is afraid of wolves? If you literally 'cried wolf' then most people would just want to check it out. You wouldn't frighten anyone unless involved in some strange circumstances (a bunch of unarmed kids out in the woods? a poorly fenced sheep farm?) The expression makes sense because it's understood that it comes from an old story from a bygone age.
By 'theatre' people aren't talking about your local modern day cinema. They're talking about old structures that were fire hazards and deathtraps in the event of a fire. Many of those buildings still exist, but they have been revamped to comply with modern fire codes. It's pretty fucking sad I had to explain this to you.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
As a test of speech rights, I'd say that anything that could conceivably slide in song lyrics should slide even when it isn't lyrics.
So while you can generally encourage people to shoot the police either in song or text, you can't use either medium to say, "I'm going to kill Officer Joe Blow," and expect to be left alone. Nor can you say, "Officer Joe Blow leaves home at 5am. Shoot him as he pulls out of his driveway."
He seemed legitimately angry and to legitimately believe in at least some of the mumbo jumbo he spewed.
Are anger and unusual ideas criminal offenses now?
It would have been pretty irresponsible for law enforcement to ignore him once it was brought to their attention.
It's hard for me to jump on board a suggestion that thought deserves law enforcement action, but I'll bite. Perhaps we can agree that law enforcement—having received a complaint that someone has posted something on the Internet that might be construed as threatening, although no targets were named specifically—should not ignore the person who posted those things. It's a pretty huge leap to the idea that said person should be arrested, detained, forced to undergo psychological treatment.
Those points don't speak to my point. "It's pretty fucking sad I had to explain that to you." Panicking and hurting people when there is no actual threat is the fault of the one doing it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I ate not one, but two (count them) monte cristo sandwiches in one siting once.
But I can't credit for it.
1. FIGURATIVE
2. LITERAL
Look them up and you will have a much better understanding of the world.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
You misspelled "the guv'mint".
#DeleteChrome
And call for stricter gun laws...
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
Yes. It is. Fantasizing about doing anything is permitted by freedom of thought; fantasizing verbally is permitted by freedom of speech. These freedoms exist to protect the thought and speech we're uncomfortable with, not the thought and speech we're comfortable with; the latter needs no protection.
Helloooooo Nurse!
Man I'm glad I don't live next door to you. Wait... is that you Steve?
I'm a Lumberjack, and I'm OK.
It's amused me that one's right to free speech is limited by the need to protect the safety of others, but the right to own weapons is considered inviolable. Tell me, which of these two rights is more important in a democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Weapons_of_mass_destruction
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
The flaw in your argument is that he wasn't just "arrested, detained, forced to undergo psychological treatment."
He was arrested, detained, and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation. Psychological treatment is pending the results of the psychological evaluation. It's not like some beat cop or FBI agent is permitted to perform the psychological evaluation. If we permitted law enforcement agents to declare people insane, I would have a serious problem with that. But that's not what's happening. He's being evaluated by a professional, and despite my disdain for psychologists, at least it's someone who has a clear responsibility and training to remain as objective as possible. If the shrink the cops take this guy to claims he needs psychological treatment, then he should probably be forced to undergo it.
Insanity is a tough issue, especially concerning cases where it conflicts with one's liberties, but I'm not cynical enough to think law enforcement acted improperly in this case.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
There didn't need to be any monitoring, his wall was left for anyone to read.
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall
I've seen worse posted by /. trolls.
I'm wondering... why him? There's tons of crazies on the internet.... what made him so special? Did he say something that was correct? This sounds exactly like the Conspiracy Theory movie where Mel Gibon plays a crazy guy that self-publishes a little newsletter full of crazy conspiracies that everyone ignores until one of his conspiracies ends up being the truth and suddenly the FBI arrests him and put him in a mental institute... actually, this is exactly that, replace newsletter with Facebook and it's the movie. Who plays Julia Roberts in the real-life version?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
He's not being punished.
He's mentally ill. He's getting help.
Most people who fall in with that Illuminati / chemtrails garbage are mentally ill to some degree, but it appears this guy was a bit more delusional, and a bit more eager to act on those delusions.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.
Then a story named "Ex-Marine Detained For Facebook Posts..." should be fiction literature
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
It should also be noted that he doesn't own any guns, which doesn't seem to follow the pattern of a psychopath about to commit mass murder.
But does he own an axe?
Illuminati and chemtrails.
Wanna know what happened? Without knowing anyone involved or any of the details, I can tell you what happened and almost certainly will be correct.
This poor guy is crazy. Mentally ill. He's making all these crazy posts, and they seemed to his friends or family to be coming to a head -- people, or a person, who knows him was afraid that he was actually going to take some irrational action fueled by his delusional conspiratorial beliefs. They called the cops, not because they thought Raud was a criminal mastermind who was going to kill millions -- but because Raud was mentally unstable and they were afraid he was going to do something foolish and get himself into real trouble, because he's disconnected from reality and caught up in delusions.
Mental illness ain't funny kids.
He's undergoing psychological evaluation. He needs it.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Well, as an ex-Marine he's had better training in wreaking havoc than your average crazy person.
I think the proper spelling in this case would be "gubbmint".
Nah, it's kinda like patents. Tack on "...on the Internet!" and it's completely brand new and not encumbered by previous annoying legislation.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Actually Veterans do have free access to Veteran Administration hospitals and clinics to receive free care to treat any conditions that result from their service. You can get pretty much any condition treated, except dental unless service connected, and they will happily bill your insurance, if you have any. If you don't then you will end up paying a copay, at the least. If you are indigent, and the standards are pretty loose on that, you don't have to even pay that, even for medications. Psychiatric conditions are a priority in my experience both as a patient and sometime employee.
Other than that, I am not comfortable with what I have seen so far, either in the media or looking at his Facebook page. I've seen far more disturbing scribbles on the 'net (even before we had the World-Wide Web) and no one has lifted a finger to detain those people. I'm not exactly restrained in my speech about what my government is doing either here in the US of A or elsewhere in the world. I've been talking about the need for a revolution for far longer and, yep, politicians and lawyers are really high on my services no longer required list. I know for a fact I'm far more dangerous and they know it. [I am not joking.] Be interesting if I get someone knocking on my door.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Same here. I like that sig I've seen around: Cthulhu 2012: Why vote for the lesser of two evils.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
This is not detaining people with whom they disagree, this is detaining people who make actual statements about starting a revolution. I'm pretty sure starting a revolution is a pretty serious criminal activity over there, it sure is around here. Of course these days it labels him a "terrorist" while before he would only have been an extremist or some such. But anyway, it's not people with whom the government disagree, it's people they have reasonable concerns are planning an actual crime.
As for how they found out, well, someone earlier in the comments said his wall was indeed open for everyone. I didn't check it out, but even if it was set to private that doesn't matter. Facebook has previously mentioned in interviews that they scan messages automatically for evidence of pedophiles going after kids or trading child pornography, so they can report to the authorities. This could just as easily be a case of facebook notifying the proper authorities when this guy went over the line.
And no, it's not a free speech issue. Telling people Americans are stupid would be an example of free speech, telling people that all Americans should be killed would be an example of free speech, telling people that they should kill all Americans would be an example of incitement, and telling people I'm going to kill all Americans would be a good way to get a long and inhospitable vacation.
I don't know the particulars for other states but here in California you can be detained by police and taken to be evaluated by psychiatrists who can place you on a 72 hour hold if you are perceived as an imminent threat to physically harm yourself or others. If they wish to hold you for a further period of time they can involve section 5250 and keep you for up to 14 days (might be 15), same particulars. After that it would have to go to court for a more extended stay.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Before I go off half cocked about whether the government should have detained the guy for psychological evaluation or not I'd be interested in hearing what his family and close friends think about it. They'd have a better handle on the situation than me.
How can you possibly have determined that he needs a psychological evaluation? You know nothing about him. Someone who has different beliefs from you or even beliefs that a minority follow is not necessarily mentally unstable. So far, nobody has come forth to claim that he is mentally unstable - not one person. In the exact opposite, we have the recent tragedy created by James Holmes, where professional mental health experts recommended authorities to have him evaluated, and what happened then?
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Disagree in the sense that he wants to decapitate people and the imvestigators didn't agree that he should?
The government can't execute prior restraint, but whether his speech is protected or can be considered criminal itself is up to the courts to decide if it gets that far.
You have to be an imminent threat to do physical harm to yourself or others before they can keep, err, detain you and there are restrictions on that. Whether you are legally sane or not doesn't even enter into it as a result of a Supreme Court decision back in the '80's, which is why you find a lot of people that had been committed in the past as homeless now.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but this page looks pretty normal to me. 9/11 truth and chemtrails and so fourth.
Yes, you hang out with crazy people.
His detention is alarming, to say the least. Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
Yes, they can, and it's not "now," it's gotten better over time as that ability has become limited. Look at this for an idea.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, because methaphors are such a novelty item in America...
Panicking and hurting people when there is no actual threat is the fault of the one doing it.
Isn't panic usually a valid defense? It means you were unable to consider your actions. As for there being no actual threat, are you saying that if someone yells fire, everyone in the room should individually go over to see the smoke before leaving? That doesn't sound like a good plan either. On the other hand, creating a situation that could be dangerous if one or two out of a few hundred random people doesn't keep his head in an emergency does sound dangerously negligent.
If somebody intentionally stampedes a herd of cattle through a town (except Pamplona) and people are trampled, do you just shoot the cow, or do you want to have words with the person who caused the stampede?
That's what I'm saying. It's totally unreasonable to have someone committed over his use of an ordinary figure of speech. It's not a threat, it's a simple metaphor which doesn't actually imply any violent intent at all.
Hey, don't give him any ideas! It's unlikely he's able to detect the sarcasm in your post.
"Does anyone out there think they haven't been doing this for awhile? Who in their right mind doesn't think posts on FB are monitored, logged and evaluated?"
Yes, every single normal citizen still think they live in a free country where private communication is private until there is a reason to suspect them being criminals. They dont realize they are being treated like criminals and as trusted as a colombian drug lord.
HTTP/1.1 400
...and of course, there's a reason that doors on all commercial establishments open outward. That reason has three words: Chicago Theater Fire.
It's gruesome just to think about it.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
They told me if I voted for McCain, the government would be perusing facebook posts and throwing those they don't like in mental institutions... and they were right!
Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre. It is perfectly legal. Look it up - there's a whole wikipedia page about it.
If only there were some way you could share the location of that page with us, some sort of "link"...
Furthermore, it is my reasoned opinion that it's fine
It's my reasoned opinion that it's not. How about standing up and firing blanks at the crowd with an automatic weapon? Hah, look at those stupid idiots, trampling each other without waiting around to see if they're really in danger.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You can't really tell if someone's crazy by looking at their unconventional beliefs. Given the governments record for truthfulness, it's probably less reasonable to take them at their word than to believe they're involved in a vast consparicy. For some reason, the conventional wisdom is to take them at their word, maybe because that's the easiest, most reassuring way to look at things. But it's certinaly not "sane," people who look at things that way are actually in denial.
That's not to say that conspiracy theories make sense or are well founded, but at least the overall suspicious view of government and authority is sensible.
These rights are both limited when they harm others. You cannot cause physical harm to others with your speech (yelling fire in a movie theater, making specific threats of physical violence) just like you cannot cause harm to others with a gun.
Owning a gun and using a gun to shoot someone are two very different things, just as speech and speech which incites violence are two different things.
I see no contradiction or conflict here.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
We have a right to own guns, not to use them in a way that threatens the rights of others. We have a right to free speech, but not to use it dangerously. I see no problem here.
Totally my fault for running that guy over, right?
The point of the fire meme is that you DON'T KNOW there is no imminent danger, you actually believe there is a fire, and that the fire could trap you and kill you in a very short time.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
The rulings did indicate that there is more involved than simply who the final actor was. If your speech is considered to be "brigaded" with action, you can be charged with the crime it caused.
Not only is outward safer, but it makes it much harder to break in to the place. You can't just slam your shoulder into a door which opens outward. Well, you can, but it's not going anywhere.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Then again, I think anyone who believes in a god needs a psychological evaluation...
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
...in three, two, one.. It'll be on http://www.infowars.com/ within a few hours. Shame the blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.... (take that "nut " pun, invert it, and well never mind). We need to thaw Ian Flemming's brain and ask it...
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
Businessmen are always trying to make military analogies. Makes them feel macho and in charge, I suppose. There is, however, a clear difference between some coke addled suit and an ex-marine with a bunch of weapons.
One is likely a psychopath, the other is a veteran exercising a right he swore to uphold.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
This is because tradition holds that all persons who joined the marines and are no longer active should be referred to as former marines, or if they have their 20 years in, retired marines. I'ts basically "You joined a brotherhood that exists for life, even if and when the paychecks stop".
Who is John Cabal?
The problem with your rap analogy is that, like fiction (an analogy other posters tried without much success), there's an understood disconnect from reality
Whether they're level headed or cuckoo for cocoa puffs, most of the time I hear people speak, especially about politics or recent events, I detect a distinct disconnect from reality.
Performing sanity checks on your own beliefs is vital in avoiding poisoned koolaid.
*So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?*
This is a Marine, fantasizing about chopping of peoples heads in the name of freedom is a mild diversion. Coulda been worse.
*So we stop a professionally trained killer in his tracks after indicating that he might be a mentally imbalanced homicidal maniac, and that makes us "slaves"?*
It is indicative of just how far we have drifted from Constitutional values, after all we know Repubmocrats would have others killed or arrested and have had the "Ministry of Truth" SCOTUS tell us black is white, good is bad, freedom is slavery for more than a century now. So yeah , I can see his point. A contextual reading class could straighten out your problem and help your literacy a bit. Public Schooled?
*I think*
N'uhuh, there is no indication.
* people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.*
I've checked many dictionaries, his statement is consistent with English language communication.Yours is the superfluous statement in this thread indicating mating season of the freckle nosed attention whore.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Is that rap?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Well, as an ex-Marine he's had better training in wreaking havoc
I'm very afraid. But not of him. I'm afraid of people who will use ability as an argument or justification to trample first amendment rights.
As an engineer, I know far more than the average person about chemistry, exothermic reactions and weaknesses in bridges. As a sysadmin and AV author, I know quite a lot more about network and computer exploits than the average slashdotter.
Does that imply that I deserve my freedom of speech limited because I'm a bomb maker and computer black hat in potentia?
The guy clearly sounds delusional. If he had gone off and killed a general, everyone would be crucifying the FBI or other Law Enforcement for not paying attention to his clearly delusional rantings. In this case the FBI stepped in and potentially prevented harm, but people are bitching about invasion of privacy and thought crime when there is no real evidence that either were at play. People, you can't have it both ways. Admittedly there are some concerns and it makes sense to make sure that nothing improper was done by the FBI but assuming not (remember, innocent until proven guilty?) it looks like the FBI did what many people have been crying out for them to do. If you were one of those crying out and don't like the result, you've just learned a lesson in being careful what you ask for...
Round up the children who post all day @ Alternet.org. They're even worse.
... because you have to be crazy to think something is wrong with this country. You have to be crazy to think it's been hijacked by aristocrats. You have to be crazy that the government is run by elitist corporatist fascists instead of democratically elected leaders that represent the people. You have to be crazy to think "we the people" has been turned into "we the ruling class". You have to be extra crazy to want to fix these problems that you have to be crazy to see in the first place.
He's crazy indeed! Please strap him down in front of a television, turn on Fox News and tape his eyes open so he can be cured of his craziness.
Only spy on US white males, given their murderous track record.
Well, as an ex-Marine he's had better training in wreaking havoc
I'm very afraid. But not of him. I'm afraid of people who will use ability as an argument or justification to trample first amendment rights.
The guy was detained for psychological evaluation, which implies that there's a possible danger to others, but also to the guy himself. Also, based on some of the posts above, the content is still viewable by the public, so I don't see the breach in the First Amendment here. No-one's stopping him saying what he wants to say, they just want to make sure he's not going to do anything stupid.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
wrong "i want to drive the wrong way on the road and crash into a police cruiser at 120 kph"
The cruiser could be empty. Ever think before you post?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
The US population is over 314 million people (source: census). The resources required to continually monitor all 314 million people make such an act impossible for purely practical purposes.
Now who's going to be the first to post 'whoosh'?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
You're thinking of 'quartered'.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
His knowledge in weapons and demolition is not the worry, his repeated calls for violence coupled with the testimony of one of his friends who brought his behavior to light is the reason he is being evaluated. If Jared Loughner had posted his crazy rantings on facebook, called multiple time for violence, and his friends reported his strange and dangerous behavior to the authorities and nothing was done, the people that ignored it would and should be held accountable. The crazy tin foil shit has nothing to do with why he was detained the violent rants do. You infrastructure knowledge and any tinfoil hat ideas you might have will not put you on watch, when blowing up bridges becomes a recurring theme in your rants and people close to you start to think you are serious and report it you will get a visit from the authorities.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
There are probably other reasons, but the way I heard it explained was this: Lots of doors open inward to restrict access to the hinge pins. Unless you have security hings, someone can pull the hinge pins and simply push the door open.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
+1
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
That makes sense I suppose, keeps the hinges on the inside. Thanks.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
What if your local sheriff's name is John Brown, and you're planning on moving away tomorrow?
The crazy tin foil shit has nothing to do with why he was detained the violent rants do.
You do realize that he was quoting song lyrics, right?
"I hate them worse than lepers
and I'll kill them in their cars."
-- Neil Young
If your "calling for someone's head" statement includes descriptions of their heads being bloodily lopped off their body or claims that you are going to sever those heads yourself with your axe, then don't be surprised if someone takes you seriously and the police look into it.
If your "calling for someone's head" statement is within the context of wishing that a person should be fired from his job, then the fact that you own an axe, etc should be irrelevant.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Wouldn't it make more sense...to fix the problem? Because what if there is a real fire causing 70 people to be trampled to death and one smoke inhalation injury? Theaters are the real threat to public safety, not speech, and in the age of the home entertainment center they are certainly too hazardous to be allowed unless an interior corral or ejection seat system can be developed.
You believe psychiatrists have a professional code of standards and an objective method yet you disdain them?
Subject exhibits irrational hostility, anti-social tendencies, and paranoia. Treatment recommendation: psychotropic induced coma, 12 courses of ECT, and frontal lobotomy.
Illuminati? BAH.
All right-thinking people, like George C Scott, know that the source of all ills of the world is The Phone Company.
I blame this squarely on the lack of faith in God in these godless times.
Used to be, when random bad shit befell you, say, if Aunt Macey[1] was hit by a bus, we'd just blame god. Errr, chalk it up to His inscrutable plan. Uhm, blame the devil.
These days, the Bilderbergers^W Illuminati serve as a secular devil that some of the weak-minded blame for all the random bad shit that happens in the world.
My point being that sometimes stuff just seemingly randomly happens. Sometimes it's bad. People like to view the universe as rational and purposeful, so they look for a cause to random bad shit.
[1] we all know that she should have checked both ways more carefully before crossing the street. And maybe not drank as much before Noon.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
....Interesting example, but I'm talking about people in immediate situations, not governments and intelligence. There's definitely a parallel... And I'd add, the fault of the people who died in Iraq does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Anyway: Own your actions and take responsibility. Have you never heard of a fire drill? When the bell rings, did students injure each other? If one kid did, would you blame the school system for having a drill?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I mean, nobody needs these deadly assault axes. Sure, our founders needed assault axes to chop down trees and heat their homes, but that was before electric heating and natural gas. Think of the children!
Own your actions and take responsibility. Have you never heard of a fire drill? When the bell rings, do students injure each other? If one kid did, despite years of fire drills with no incident, would you blame the school system for having a drill? My drills were never announced as such in college. You don't know the difference between a drill and a real bell. Does that mean I can knock people over, hurt them, then claim no responsibility? Strangely, this never happened in my 1,000 person dorm.
What I am seeing here is people making excuses to not own their action, and blame idiotic actions on someone else. Total lack of personal responsibility.
This is also how the police get away with shooting unarmed people, and it’s wrong then too.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Run around saying the word and find out.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
But there will likely be plenty of people here who choose to believe the government is routinely and without warrants monitoring private communications on social media -- it will be the same folks who believe that the government is illegally dragnet-wiretapping all Americans while ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests.
Yes, there will be. I am one of them. I believe the government is monitoring social media websites looking for "radicals" of various stripes. They are not, however, ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests. They can monitor both foreign and domestic interests at the same time.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
We're well on the way already, with a much larger percentage of the population in jail than any other country.
Land of the free, indeed. Sure, freedom of speech except for this, that, and that other, and a few more things. And no guarantee of due process, or a trial at all. This "freedom" doesn't impress me. But people here still blindly believe they have the most freedom in the world, and are only willing to see where they have freedom and others don't, but not when it's the other way around. It must be patriotism, because it makes no sense.
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." -- G. K. Chesterton
It's not patriotism, it's a result of propaganda. We're soaking in it!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Your stampede metaphor makes no sense.
It wasn't meant as a metaphor. It was an example of a similar situation.
I'm suggesting that there is not such a big difference between a panicked group of cattle and a panicked group of people. Neither is thinking; and the fact that people normally think about their actions with more care than cattle think about theirs doesn't make much difference once the panic has started. I am further claiming that the person who intentionally caused the panic, knowing what would probably result, is at least as much to blame as the creature or person that was tricked into a state of panic.
It's not similar. You are comparing a situation of a perceived threat to one of a real threat. It's the difference between me pulling out a gun and pointing it at you, and pulling out my wallet. One of those, you can shoot me. The other, you can only shoot me if you're a cop (who use this excuse to murder innocent people on a daily basis).
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Speech has many purposes. Guns have a singular purpose.
When you CHOOSE to join the military, you give up some rights.
The same SHOULD apply to police, but rarely does.
As an engineer, I know far more than the average person about chemistry, exothermic reactions and weaknesses in bridges. As a sysadmin and AV author, I know quite a lot more about network and computer exploits than the average slashdotter. Does that imply that I deserve my freedom of speech limited because I'm a bomb maker and computer black hat in potentia?
In short: Yes. Gratz on getting watch-listed.
the entire purpose in having a right to bear arms is safety, primarily of yourself and in relation to the powers that be. Its also includes safety of yourself and anyone would threaten your imminent well-being, but the primary purpose is protection from the government. Any government that has no reason to fear its citizens is free to do whatever it wishes to them, for the citizenry is then at the mercy of the government and dependent on the continued benevolence of said government. The forefathers learned well from the Crown, the crown that attempted to disarm its colonial subjects to make them more easily controlled, and same the crown that denied its colonials the rights of a basic Englishman across the pond. There is a reason for each and every one of the articles in the Bill of Rights, and they are still each and everyone of them timeless in their importance.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yelling fire cannot serve any purpose but to cause harm.
Except that other, somewhat important, purpose of alerting people to imminent danger.
You need a qualifying statement in there.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Multiple times the thought to do this has occurred to me, but I don't know how you'd prove your innocence once shit hit the fan. I've thought about sending a letter to myself detailing the plan, only to be opened in the event that I am arrested/accused of a conspiracy to commit murder/terrorism, but how would you prove that you hadn't done that as a safety measure in case someone caught you carrying out your legitimate terrorist conspiracy? "Oh, umm.... I was just trying to see if the government is monitoring people, I don't actually want to kill anyone. I have a letter right here saying so. See.....? You can let me go now."
That being said, I do assume that Facebook automatically scans every chat for keywords and sends the filtered message(s) over to someone for closer inspection. I really, really want to know if this is the case, but I also don't want to royally fuck up my life. I only have one, you know -- and I do care about it. The only way I'd ever do something like this is if I had the backing of an organization like the ACLU and it was uber-well documented. I think that'd be the only way to do it and sufficiently cover your ass. The government doesn't like being embarrassed.
More specifically the Bureaucratic State, the web of agencies and regulators that exists from Administration to Administration, constantly growing either more or less slowly. It's purportedly led by the Cabinet Secretaries, but in reality the policies are made at lower levels by people appointed or promoted to implement the specifics of whatever broad general requirements are passed into law
"Clean up the air and water" becomes ten thousand pages of regulations in the Federal Registry, many of them giving passes to certain groups and punishing others, based on their ability to lobby the Bureaucratic State's purported overseers, Congress, or more specifically, the Congressional Staff.
The Bureaucratic State has one overall mandate, and that is to increase its power by assuming it must do more and more every year, and creating new problems to solve once their original problems have been managed or solved.
Unless that mandate is challenged, and the size of the Bureaucratic State reduced, we will lose more and more freedom of action to the controlling whims of the State. I don't see any political party willing to challenge that power, especially since the supposed "overseers" of the State are exempt from the State's control, and never see the problem of loss of freedom.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
but the right to own weapons is considered inviolable.
Um, do you know how many limitations there actually are on owning weapons?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'd suggest that you consider what it would take to implement any of the following of your ideas:
1) Ban theaters (I'm sure everyone will take this like the rational people we expect them to be, right?)
2) Pass new legislation (Yay! More regulations!) requiring that every theater in the country be retrofitted per your specifications.
3) Develop "consumer safe" ejection seat - must work flawlessly for infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, the elderly, the infirm, the deaf, those twits necking in the back row, the mentally handicapped, etc...
4) Pay for said regulations/retrofitting/inspections (How do you feel about taxes and/or movie ticket prices?)
All of these to save a couple people a year on average, maybe. Read up on the statistical value of a human life before you propose extravagant solutions.
Or we could just make a habit of smacking the hell out of people who cry wolf with the intent to cause injuries. Cheaper. Faster. Deters future idiocy.
We recognize that, with almost every activity, there is risk involved and there's the chance that people will die. We put up with deaths in theater fires because they are very rare and preventing them costs so much as to be prohibitive. (It's the same reason you don't see seat belts on school buses, or see a car recall after every accident.) We don't put up with people who think that "free speech" is a justified reason (or defense) for needlessly endangering others.
And besides, if the government can ban theaters for "your own protection", they might just as easily replace your house with a padded room, and take over management of your diet and exercise, and otherwise deprive you of ways to harm yourself.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
That is incorrect. I believe firmly that everyone should and generally does have the right to free speech, and this does include online (rather, if you post it on someone else's site, in this case facebook, -facebook- has every right to do what they like with it and with your account, but that should still not be a criminal issue). But just as your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy's nose starts, your right to go spewing crazy ends when you start threatening to decapitate people. That is the law, and I don't have much of a problem with it.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_threatening
You can't really tell if someone's crazy by looking at their unconventional beliefs.
True, but your can tell they are out of touch with reality. Your friends probably aren't crazy, that's an exaggeration. However, conspiracy theories appeal to those who are more familiar with how Hollywood works than how reality works. Get back in touch with reality, stop appearing stupid.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I know a lot of military people, and such talk is fairly common in private conversations. Certainly it's out of line in polite conversation - but these guys and ladies are trained for battle and live in a warrior class. Even officers are apt to cringe-worthy comments on the brass.
So yeah, maybe it's worth a checkup and such, but everyone has an opinion. Marines have strong opinions.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Reminds me of the Bob Marley song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgWUnuB6quc
or it could be lyrics...
Marley was one of the three quotes, yes. A peace loving man, by all accounts.
The other two were:
Pink Floyd -- Roger Waters may have a morbidly depressed personality, but unlikely axe murderer material.
Insane Clown Posse -- likely insane, definitely clowns, and being two people, nowhere near a posse.
Don't be an asshole, of course we are not talking about if there actually is a fire.
That's not true. Guns can be used for defense, to overthrow a government, to hunt, etc...
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
So your opinion is that 80% of the world's population needs a psychological evaluation. I rest my case.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
If you hear voices and say they're just people, you're called a schizophrenic.
If you hear voices and say they're a supernatural being, you're called a prophet.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
You are most definitely hanging out with the wrong crowd if you think that's 'normal'. It's batshit insane.
Do we pick up batshit insane people and carefully evaluate them? Yes we do when they are making dramatic, aggressive and clearly homicidal statements. Especially when they have an apparent motive and means to execute their diatribes.
Remember, he wasn't jailed. He was placed in a psychiatric detention. This happens on a regular basis around the US - it can be abused which is why the courts go to great lengths to make sure the case is strong enough. You have the right to counsel, you get the public defender if you can't afford a private attorney.
Is it perfect? No. Can it be abused? Sure. But the checks and balances have been worked on for many years and, IMHO, they're pretty reasonable.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
Unfortunately for your position, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Citizens have the right to free speech." This mistake is so incredibly common. Here's what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So enforcing it exactly as written without exception means this: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's it. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It certainly doesn't guarantee that you have a right to free speech. Compare --and contrast-- this phrasing to the constitutions of almost every other democracy. For example, Germany's Basic Law, Article 5:
Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
Section 12 of the Finland Constitution:
Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.
Want to interpret the US Constitution strictly by text? Great. Just please do make sure that you read it very, very carefully.
You are wrong. If no law can be made that restricts free speech, then you cannot enforce any restriction without a written statute to permit that restriction. Germany and Finland are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The American constitution states what the government can do, not what it can't. So unless it is specifically written into law, the authorities cannot restrict speech in any form.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I should add that because of what little is permitted in the constitution, there was a great debate as to whether the Bill of Rights was even necessary. (Hint: It shouldn't have been) I figured they decided not to take the chance, and spell it out a bit more precisely.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Man, you're taking this trolling effort to pretty extreme levels...
+1 Disagree
I'm not trolling. Take responsibility for your own actions.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
For the "person" making the real threats, set their address to be one of your neighbors.
Hmmm, defamation of character and libel? Since you like experiments maybe a neighbor can use your address and mention you're a sex offender and see what happens! (For the record I don't advocate this.)
Since no real people (only your fake sock poppets) can see any of this stuff, if you see a SWAT team show up at your neighbors' house, then we can surmise that Facebook does indeed allow the government to monitor private communications there.
Facebook employees can. The phone company can (or whomever you get your internet through). Also you may note that all of these companies respond to subpenas... so yes "private" information may be monitored. Regarding Facebook specifically this is mentioned in the legal terms you wantonly clicked through when creating an account (See Safety 7, 10, 12 and how they relate to your experiment) I say wantonly since you obviously aren't sure about their Privacy Policy specifically the "Some other things you need to know" section addressing "Responding to legal requests and preventing harm". In a related note you may find the following interesting:
The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."
Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. article
Considering information you broadcast private? It's the exact opposite.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
The American constitution states what the government can do, not what it can't.
Not only does it sound like you haven't actually read the US Constitution, it sounds like you didn't even read the full quote of the 1st Amendment in my parent post. Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you believe is something states what Congress can do, rather than what Congress cannot do? Since when does "you shall not do that one thing" mean "you can do some other stuff", while explicitly not, instead, meaning "you cannot do that one thing"?
Don't be this guy: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
""Clean up the air and water" becomes ten thousand pages of regulations in the Federal Registry,"
Because you overly simple statement is incredibly vague. Specifics and clarity take a lot of work.
it's like saying :
"Build a bride over that river" becomes 10 thousand details.
well, no SHIT.
The rest of your post is simply wrong. I'll chalk it up to ignorance.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hmmm, defamation of character [ehow.com] and libel?
Well obviously you do it in a way that you can't be tracked (use public wifi at Starbucks, for instance). And make sure to pick some really shitty neighbors...
Also you may note that all of these companies respond to subpenas [sic]
There's a big difference between informing law enforcement of threatening comments made by real people, which are seen by other real people (people in their friends list), and threatening comments that are seen by absolutely no one except the commenter. In the latter case, the only way for law enforcement to find out about these comments is if they're actively monitoring ALL messages on Facebook, ALL the time. If that thought doesn't disturb you, then I can't help you, because there's obviously something wrong with you.
A 30 day psych ward stint would stop most people. They can be evaluated and given meds. Bi-polar, schizophrenia, paranoia, etc are all real medical condition that need treatment. They also can cause people to ill other people and do violent things.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, you see Willard... In this war, things get confused out there, power, ideals, the old morality, practical military necessity. But out there with these natives it must be a temptation to be god. Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have one. Walter Kurtz has reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane.
"Do they have any right to detain the man?"
actually, they do.
I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I agree that the Iraq War does not pertain precisely to your original statement - but I enjoyed the insight.
Your second statement is interesting too. "fault . . . does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence" So you'd agree that they are clearly not blameless? This would seem to support my position.
I take the position that if you engage in action that you know will lead to the harm of others when inaction will prevent the harm, you are culpable for the harm. (This is true even if you do not personally inflict the harm. If you drop a piano on someone, you can't say "Gravity did it!" and expect clemency.) If you are not prepared to accept blame for the harm, you better not engage in the action. There are (rare) circumstances where this is acceptable - like preventing an even greater harm. However, knowingly causing the harm of others makes you a criminal in the eyes of society, even if the law does not explicitly ban your conduct.
Taking a different approach: It's not a crime to speak (most things), or to shoot guns (most places), or to throw things, or to drop pianos. Causing the death of another human is a crime, even if it happens due to otherwise protected actions. If you take actions that you know could result in the death of another, you are party to the crime. How blame is apportioned will depend on the circumstances, but you should not expect that a court of law or public opinion will support your contention that "it's legal, therefore I'm blameless."
And as others have mentioned already, the Italian Hall Disaster of 1913 is an example of someone falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which resulted in the deaths of 73 people.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
As for: ". "fault . . . does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence" So you'd agree that they are clearly not blameless? This would seem to support my position."
In that case, yes, because it is the act of a state, not an individual. Totally different paradigm. But I am also saying that if you blame it all on whoever gives misinformation first, then the President isn't culpable, the generals aren't culpable, and the soldiers aren't culpable either. After all, they're "just following orders".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Well, that why they had the debate. It's a good thing they put the bill of rights in there, as an attempt to prevent the nutcases from the future from trying to pull a fast one. Apparently it didn't work. Those rights have been thoroughly trashed anyway. And it's sad to see people defending this trashing. Please don't be one of those people who believe that the bill of rights goes too far. You don't seem to because you're applying limitations to them that simply don't exist. Just do What I originally said, modify the law, don't misinterpret it. I have no problem as long as proper procedure is followed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Where do you get your info? I studied US constitutional law, in law school. I'm no conlaw scholar (thank heavens), but because of my education I have studied constitutional law in greater depth than most of the public. I also studied, albeit to a lesser extent, the constitutions of other countries. The difference between the US and almost every other democracy is indeed *very* relevant here, it's what clarifies the difference between "Congress shall not..." and "People have the right to..."
This difference is also known as the difference between positive and negative rights. Please do read up on the subject. Based on what you've said here, I think you've seriously misunderstood some key notions about what the US constitution is, and what it is not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
"The rest is simply wrong." I take it you're a bureaucrat or related to one. I've lived in Metro DC for nearly 30 years, and have worked for Federal and Defense contractors the whole time, I've seen the Breaucratic State in action, I've seen how it works, I've been friends with the lowest-level bureaucrats and seen what they do, and dealt with mid-level management in different Agencies. If you claim that makes me "ignorant", well I'll take that as a compliment, since you're the one who's far more ignorant. "There are none so blind" etc. etc. Of course, you may be too young to know what it was like before the Bureaucratic State grew this large, so you don't know what to compare it to.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Utterly tenacious! I haven't seen this level of effort since The Great MyCleanPC Caper of June!
+1 Disagree
Under what false conditions am I allowed to brazenly trample someone to death and take no responsibility for it? It's one thing if I'm actually on fire or see it (Great White concert) -- but what false pretenses remove my responsibility and place it on someone else?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Sadly in Virginia detention for mental instability is legal. Here's another commenter who understands it better than me.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3061057&cid=41063339
But you're right in that the law probably should be changed.
I'm not so sure. In the U.S., we've just had a rash of cases in which some nut job goes off and starts killing people, and Virginia is one of those places where guns are easy to obtain. In fact, since the Virginia Tech shootings, gun laws have been loosened. This guy sounds like he'd be using edged weaponry instead of firearms, but I still believe evaluation is in order.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
In the latter case, the only way for law enforcement to find out about these comments is if they're actively monitoring ALL messages on Facebook, ALL the time.
You do know many more things are monitored right? I haven't been on Facebook in awhile but most sites have a 'report this post' feature client facing. It's similar to a like but it's a dislike... pretty crazy concept right? I also don't find it shocking that there is active and most likely automated enforcement of their acceptable use policy. Perhaps you're familiar with how SPAM is dealt with? That doesn't seem to bother you. In some situations monitoring is a good thing. Like when they close peoples accounts who are known pedos, or idiots who post pictures of crimes. Please don't misconstrue this as support and/or endorsement of Fascist communications monitoring.
If that thought doesn't disturb you, then I can't help you, because there's obviously something wrong with you.
Indeed it does, which is why I'm very careful about what I choose to share online especially when my name and picture are associated with it. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm more alarmed at your lack of understanding of what privacy is and why you think people have it on Facebook. There is no privacy on Facebook. By sharing information you're doing the exact opposite of keeping it secret.
privacy/prvs/
Noun:
The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
The state of being free from public attention.
You have no expectation of privacy Facebook here too here. By posting information you are sharing information.
TLDR; "I can keep a secret but the people I tell cannot."
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
People should also realize that if you are ever involuntarily committed, you automatically lose your ability to own or purchase firearms in the US.
No conditions at all - obviously you are incapable of panic and will keep a cool head in any situation that presents itself and regardless of what other people around you are doing. You are the pinnacle of grace under fire and I salute you, good sir!
+1 Disagree
Hell, even if there's an actual fire, am I allowed to push over an old lady like George Costanza in the Seinfeld episode? (except that wasn't a real fire). Is that acceptable? Does the blame lie with me in a real fire, but someone else in a fake fire? I'm interested in what you think.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Or maybe I should ask -- at what point are YOU going to hurt someone, then claim it was the panic's fault, and not yours? Own your actions.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"they just want to make sure he's not going to do anything stupid."
Except the law isn't supposed to be applied until after physical action has happened. Preventive detention is basically a civil rights issue and proof that the 1st amendment/bill of rights is in the toilet. He hasn't harmed anyone and having a big mouth isn't illegal otherwise most politicians, executives, talking heads, etc. would have been put to death by now.
How long till it becomes "we noticed you disagreed with policy so we're locking you up so you don't do anything stupid. Oh and don't worry about those wires running to your temples from the HV power supply. It's just for your safety." is normal.
Unfortunately much of the quoted has already happened.
-- Rendition program under Bush
-- arrests for photographing police in operation
-- free speech zones
-- preventive detention
-- etc.
-- etc.
-- etc.
Whitehead said he found nothing alarming in Raub's social media commentaries. "The posts I read that supposedly were of concern were libertarian-type posts I see all the time," he said.
I must say, this is bullshit. I'll admit I'm one of those people who spend a lot of time hanging around libertarian groups online, and I have never seen one person even remotely start saying things like this .. in fact the vast majority libertarians are against initiating violence (which is why they're libertarian). Occasionally a small minority might talk vaguely about "revolution" but I've never seen it in terms of specific threats.
You can tell if they are out of touch with convention. Convention has little to do with reality.
Psychology is somewhat objective in the sense that most of its major contributors, from an academic standpoint, would attempt to apply the scientific method. It's important because there are some who do suffer from debilitating mental illnesses that make them incapable of independently functioning in society.
My problem with it, as your Cuckoo's Nest example points out, that all too often to focus is solely on behavior. When this happens they neglect to find out whether the person acts insane because they truly are or because they chose to act that way. Hopefully neurology will eventually overtake the field, relegating it to armchair shrinks who help insecure people deal with their insecurities through discourse.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
No, I don't know anything about him. I do know about Illuminati and chemtrails babble, though, and you have to have a screw loose to believe any of that convoluted conspiratorial claptrap in the first place -- and another screw loose to actually decide to ACT on those beliefs. That's when you cross the line from "weird" to "this person may be a danger to themselves or others".
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
If they are 9/11ers AND believe in chemtrails, they are out of touch with reality, and probably out of touch with physics as well.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They, like most other people, simply looking at things without really understanding how to question them. The only difference is that somewhere along the way, they figured out they were being lied to and now they don't know what to believe. So they simply grasp at anything that they are afraid might be true, or hope will be true. And as for being out of touch with physics, they are in good company.
'Weird' people are everywhere, but that doesn't mean that we should lock them up, and there is nothing that suggests he is a danger to himself or others.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Weird is one thing, crazy is another.
I disagree that there is nothing. The guy claimed that men were on their way to pick him up to lead the revolution. Maybe it was hyperbole, but maybe he *actually believed that*. Yeah, to you or I, it's obviously not meant to be taken seriously. To him? He may have been packing his bags.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
No. Whats your point? Its ok to kill someone if they've been unfaithful? Are you a psychopath or something?
How's the tin-foil hat making business? Made your first million yet?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Yeah, it's a dangerous situation to be in, unless they start learning how to evaluate evidence.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I apologize for not being more clear of my intentions for this discussion. What would I do in a fire? Well as I picture it, I would kick down a wall and waltz out juggling a baby, two old grannies (and their walkers) and an old hound dog. The building (now safely emptied) would crumble behind me. I'd then be greeted by cheering firepeople (women can be firepeople too, y'know!) and showered with rose petals. I'd also get the key to the city.
But that's just what I'd do in case of fire. Do I care what you would do? No, not really. I mean, I hope you don't burn of course, 'cause that's terrible.
+1 Disagree
You might care if I knocked you over just to get one person ahead... It's kinda like the jerk who cuts you off in traffic just to be one car ahead at the next red light, except with more chance of injury for you.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
He should have disclaimed his posts as fiction to begin with would have never had this problem.
Some phrases from Alice's Restaurant should apply. "I wanna see etc., etc,. in my teeth!"
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
This is not someone who just posted some conspiracy theory or made remarks against policy. This is a guy who threatened to cut off people's heads.
Yes, the police sometimes do overstep their bounds. They also sometimes fail to prevent crazy shit that they could have prevented. If they had information about this Marine's threats, failed to act, and the Marine had followed through on his threats, what would everyone be saying then?
I'm glad they didn't send a SWAT team in and kill him, and I'm glad he's getting some psychiatric attention. I'm not sure there's a much better outcome that anyone could have reasonably expected in this situation.
In Reason We Trust
Early on, FB employees FAMOUSLY made bets on whether girl X was going to dump boy Y based on messages girl X thought were private. In fact, they have had and still have have and will always have 100% access to every single thing you write for all time, and it's all scanned for anything they consider criminal or otherwise interesting, howsoever they choose to define interesting. So interesting includes things like "binge drinker" "smoker" "promiscuous" "manipulative" and especially especially the stuff they can deduce about you given the habits of your circle of friends which they call 'aggregate data" where the "aggregate" is exactly two or three people ....that's right.. every time your friends do something outrageous, algorithms which compute "aggregate data" change YOUR profile.
Where do you think their multi-billion dollar monetization comes from, from the ability to conclude that you're a likely buyer of the next boy-band keychain?
Look, don't use FB. Don't use walled gardens generally because a walled garden viewed from the inside is really just a prison complete with a warden who ends up telling you what you can and cannot do with your life. .
Sounds like you believe in guilty until proven innocent.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
It's amused me that one's right to bear arms is limited by the need to protect the safety of others, but the right to free speech is considered inviolable. Tell me, which of these two rights is more important in a democracy?
Both of these statements are incredibly ridiculous. Everyone's right to weapons is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from going on a murderous rampage. Everyone's right to free speech is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. I'm not arguing the effectiveness of these measures, but it is what it is.
People are usually aware of fire drills. Not so much if some punk decides to incite panic in a crowded place.
Sounds like you need to RTFS. He's being psychologically evaluated. Someone saw his wall, someone who probably knew the guy, they likely had reasons aside from simply his facebook wall to believe him to be in danger or a danger. If he was actually sane and a threat, he would've been charged with something, not put in a psych ward. This happens to crazy people. You usually just don't hear about it. Sometimes it's the only way they can get the help they need, and sometimes it's help they don't want, because they're not sane. This isn't a story about some Big Brother crap, this is more likely the story about some unfortunate mentally ill guy.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Everyone's right to weapons is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from going on a murderous rampage.
And yet loons continue to go on rampages. The limitations imposed are clearly not effective. Yet anytime anybody suggests some common-sense measures (don't sell guns that are easily retrofitted to full-auto; don't sell 20-shot magazines; make people take a gun safety course; do something about all those untraceable gun sales) we're accused of wanting to ban guns completely.
You know what would be great? If the NRA types would admit they've won the whole "right to bear arms" argument and move on from there. Nobody's going to take away your guns because the Supreme court says they can't, and anyway gun culture is too deeply embedded in American society to be eliminated. So enjoy your victory and don't get so bent out of shape when the rest of try to restrict illegitimate use of guns.
Since you have the intimate details of the case, can you please provide me with them? I'm interested in reading them.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
You are still missing a few important points.
1) For the legality of the situation: IF YOU CREATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION, YOU CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HARM DONE, EVEN IF YOU WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE HARM. This is true even if others could have acted to prevent the harm. If you think this is false, you are wrong, If you don't believe me, ask a judge or someone else who has professional experience with this area of the law. Don't look for idiots on /. to confirm your foolish belief.
2) You are still totally ignoring the physics of a tightly packed crowd. Trampling happen among tightly packed people even when everyone behaves in the most rational possible way. Let me provide an example:
Imagine a crowd of three hundred adults of average size packed into a hallway that fits 6 people across under the current conditions (approx 10 feet), and there is about 6 inches between each person and the person behind.
This implies that the crowd will be roughly 50 people deep.
At the end of a hallway is large double door, measuring 8 feet across, through which no more than 5 people may pass at any one time.
Still with me?
Let's give them a reason to worry: Some person (who depending on their intent, may or may not be the scum of the earth) has announced loudly (and in a way which inspires panic) that there is a "FIRE!"
Let's imagine that every thing is perfect for a moment - people are passing through the door, no person is touching any other, and the evacuation is proceeding in an orderly fashion. This lasts for a moment, but while passing through the door, somebody trips. Let's call this moment Time 0.
What happens? The second person in line behind them does exactly what any reasonable person would do, and attempts to stop. Let's imagine that Person 2 has remarkable strength and reflexes, and succeeds in going from a walking pace to a stop over the course of 6 inches. However, the third person in the line comes up abruptly Person 2 - pressing them forward slightly. Person 3 applies whatever force is necessary to stay upright. (For the sake of simplicity, let's say they initially exert 20 N of force (slightly less than 5 lbs) against Person 2.
Has anything unreasonable happened here yet? Personal space has been invaded, but that's it. Has someone acted in any way OTHER than the way a rational person would act? I think not.
While this little drama involving Persons 1, 2, and 3 has been playing out (in which Person 4 is about to join), Persons 5 thru 50 have been moving forward. Many of them have not been made aware of the problem, and even if they are aware that there is a problem ahead, the person directly in front of them is still moving forward at the same rate as before, so there appears to be no immediate need to stop.
Another 500 milliseconds pass. Now, Person 4 comes against Person 3, and applies a 20 N load in exactly the same way as Person 3 is loading Person 2. Now, Person 3 transmits a load of 20 Newtons IN ADDITION to the origional 20 N load that they were imposing, so Person 2 now sees a force of 40 N.
The situation repeats, through the entire line. Here's why. If people are moving at 0.5 miles per hour, they cover that 6 inch spacing in a bit less than 700 milliseconds. Human reaction time is roughly 200 milliseconds. So if we assume that everyone grasps the entire situation and determines the appropriate response within 200 milliseconds of when the person in front of them comes to a stop, then they have 500 milliseconds to act before they will come into contact with the person in front of them - and they haven't done anything yet. if it takes an additional 200 ms to reposition their bodies to stop in the most effective way possible, they have 300 ms remaining. If each person can come to a complete stop in that time, without touching the person in front, then the crowd will stop nicely. Unfortunately they can't. This would require a deceleration of 0.75 m/s^2. For a reasonable sized male (78 kg) thi
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
Using your physics, it's a wonder people aren't killed at every rock concert, where the entire crowd pushes forward toward the stage.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's actually a very well known methaphor for a real threat. It's the kind of thing that you say when you want to threathen people with violence. Especially if you consider the context. Actually the context is all you should consider when you want to decide if this is a real threat or not.
You really need to start researching things before you post them.
Google search: "people die at rock concert crush". First result: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114358,00.html
A little more searching also found this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampede, which has the following:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_The_Who_concert_disaster (alluded to in previous link)
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskilde_Festival#2000_accident
3) August 20, 1988: 2 people were crushed to death during a Guns N' Roses concert at a Monsters of Rock festival at Donington Park, England. (no specific link)
This DOES happen, and one of the big responsibilities of the venue is to provide adequate crowd control. If you think they aren't worried about this, ask them about their insurance. You may also note that really large venues have physical separations between groups of seating - this ensures that you can't develop a crowd that's too deep - and they keep security people trained in crowd control around.
Also, if you have found a specific error in my math or scenario, please feel free to point it out. I'll fix it and we can reevaluate. (If all you can come up with is a vague counter-example, can it.) You've neglected a couple of key difference between 300 people in a hallway and 300 people up against a stage. Crowd depth in the direction of motion, participant expectations, and state of mind are major factor in these situations. A group of fans near a stage in a large venue may have a couple hundred people in it, but be 30 people wide and only 10 people deep. Also, these people are expecting to _stop_ moving forward at some point. One more thing - These people aren't expecting to be burned to death if they are at the back of the crowd - which changes the dynamic a bit.
I think that addresses your counter-example, and I want to take a moment to point out that you are really not taking much time to think through the specifics of the situation and the influence of small details. This may be why you were promoting such idiocy in the first place. Really, do some research.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
My question was why are they not killed at EVERY concert. The difference is the acts of the individual. Your model has people following so closely that if someone in front of them stops, they trip over them. That is unreasonable, and the responsibility for that is on the individual. Almost every stadium and concert venue has 1000+ people passing through at least one small doorway, and of course people sometimes trip. Yet, people dying is not normal, because normal people are reasonable in their actions. When a real fire happens, I'd expect someone to possibly die, because there is a legitimate rush. But when there is no real fire, and you do it, YOU are the asshole, not the guy who said a falsehood that you kill someone over an *assumption* of. There's a lot you seem to drop in your responses, like a real fire vs a fake fire, or the fact that I mentioned *every* rock concert, not *one or two*.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
You are still, STILL, missing the point that a crowd isn't controlled by the people at the obstruction. It's controlled by the people behind, and their actions (which may be perfectly reasonable in isolation) are compounded into an undesirable behavioral under certain circumstances. Person 3 in my example can no more resist the pressure from behind than Person 2 could.
You don't see deaths at every rock concert today for the same reason you don't see people dying every time a fire alarm goes off in a theater. YOU don't see all the infrastructure and people working behind the scenes to prevent tragedies. If you look at the flow of people out of any modern large stadium, you'll see that there are multiple chokepoints to prevent any one crowd from being too large, that's why seating sections have dividers between them, and there are several levels of exits. (That provides exactly zero excuse for someone who intentionally creates a rush - If you pulled a fire alarm and people got trampled to death, you bear responsibility, same as if you yelled "Fire!") Most of the time the system works, theaters, concerts, it's all the same. Crowd depth is an important variable. Psychology is another. People who are much more knowledgeable about either field than I spend a lot of time writing regulations, designing buildings, creating crowd control plans, and doing whatever they can to make sure that the cattle-like participants like you stay as calm as possible, and your "herd" is limited to a reasonable size. After all, if you feel stressed or overcrowded, you'll spend your money elsewhere - but if you die, they have to pay off your heirs.
I agree in principle with your statement that "Normal people are usually reasonable in their actions" but you forget the edge cases. Normal people are known to be unreasonable in their actions under some circumstances, and if you attempt to manufacture those circumstances, there's NO WAY you will be held blameless for the result. There's no excuse if you create a hazardous situation and someone is harmed.
As to your distinction to "Real" vs "Fake" fires - I thought the distinction was obvious, but clearly I have to spell this out too. Here's how courts see this situation:
a) You yell "fire!" in a theater.
b) There's a crowd of 300, who collectively panics, stampedes, and 3 people die.
Scenario 1: You were telling the truth. (There was a REAL fire)
Harm done as a result of your actions: 3 deaths caused
Good done as a result of your actions: up to 297 deaths averted
Scenario 2: You were lying (there was no real fire)
Harm done as a result of your actions: 3 deaths caused
Good done as a result of your actions: 0 deaths averted
Judgment: In the first scenario, you were acting in the interest of the greater good, so the lives you saved would vastly outweigh those lost due to your actions. You may not be judged a hero, but no one's going to suggest that you be charged for manslaughter or worse.
In the second scenario, there is no greater good, so your actions can only be judged by the harm they did. Expect to face charges, who's severity depend on your intent.
Don't try to feed me that line about dropping things in my responses - I'd be here all day if I wanted to pick apart every error in your reasoning. And besides, you are hardly innocent. (To paraphrase someone who may or may not have lived two millennia ago: Remove the beam from your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the speck from mine.) My goal in this discussion is to attack your idiotic thesis that the first amendment prevents your being held responsible for harm done as a result of falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater (or similar situation). In the furtherance of that goal, I have attempted to educate you about previous events (you had not done enough research to know that people HAD died due to false claims that there was a fire in a theater) and I have set up sample scenarios so that you could better understand the situations (physics of a s
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
BTW, I go to 1000+ person shows that have a single exit all the frickin' time.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com